--A wee quibble. Borodino wasn't the bloodiest battle of the 19th Century. That "honor" belongs to The Battle of Nations/Leipzig, in 1813. Casualty estimates range from around 90000 to nearly 120000.
--Though its total numbers aren't way up there along with the likes of Verdun and Cannae, The Battle of Cold Harbor on 3 June 1864 was pretty nasty. The Union forces lost about 7500 men and the Confederates lost about 1500--in about a quarter of an hour. That doesn't seem too bad if you're accustomed to what machine guns and rapid fire field guns can do.....but they were using muzzleloaders.

battle of Leipzig was not a single battle but is a generic name for a number of individual battles fought in the vicinity of Leipzig. none of the individual battles was bloodier than Borodino.

--Leipzig is considered a single battle, despite being composed of seperate engagements that took place other than at one specific locale. So are the likes of Leyte Gulf, Operation Market-Garden, Operation Overlord, the Battle of Kursk, the Battle of Koniggratz, etc. There are quite a few of them.

--Quible, quibble, quibble. According to the Soviet General Staff Study on the battle, it's called the Battle FOR Kursk. Normally the winner names the fight. Are you calling the Soviet General Staff an "edutainment" facility?
--Regardless, you knew what I meant.

--Quible, quibble, quibble. According to the Soviet General Staff Study on the battle, it's called the Battle FOR Kursk. Normally the winner names the fight. Are you calling the Soviet General Staff an "edutainment" facility?
--Regardless, you knew what I meant.

no, the Germans called their offensive Operation Zitadelle, while the Soviets called their counter-offensives Operation Kutuzov and Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev. no "battle for kursk" whatsoever. and that's not quibble but fact.

--Quibble, quibble, quibble.
--The Soviet counteroffensive is not quite the same thing as the Soviet defensive, since it was composed of two operations, with one unleashed before the German ops had stopped, and the other being withheld until after they had stopped. In either case, the sum of the fighting is still known as Kursk, despite being composed of several smaller actions, each of which was composed of again smaller actions, and several different code names for various parts, given by the two sides.
--As for what the Germans named the offensive, I know they called it Zitadel. The Allies called their invasion of France Overlord--and each of its parts had a different name.....but it's still called the Normandy Invasion. Same as the "official" name for the Battle of the Bulge is the Ardennes Counteroffensive, as named by the winners; the losers called it Watch on the Rhine.
--In all cases, the great majority of people--including those writing serious history and writing at staff and war colleges--for example: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz2/glantz2.asp--call the battles Kursk, Normandy and the Bulge. I know; I taught at the US Army War College.

for someone who claims to have taught living creatures you display the maturity and discussion style of a retarded sociopath. i mean if you want to come here to discuss instead of showing off and refuting all counter-arguments and are immune to reason and correction by "lesser" beings then i guess your stay here won't be very long.

--As for what the Germans named the offensive, I know they called it Zitadel. The Allies called their invasion of France Overlord--and each of its parts had a different name.....but it's still called the Normandy Invasion. Same as the "official" name for the Battle of the Bulge is the Ardennes Counteroffensive, as named by the winners; the losers called it Watch on the Rhine.
--In all cases, the great majority of people--including those writing serious history and writing at staff and war colleges--for example: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz2/glantz2.asp--call the battles Kursk, Normandy and the Bulge. I know; I taught at the US Army War College.

first of, it's spelled Zitadelle, not Citadel with a Z. second, Germans also named this Operation as Ardennenoffensive. I know; I am German

btw i like how you say "taught" as opposed to 'teach'. does that mean they threw you out for some reason...? like answering your students questions with "quibble, quibble, quibble" all the time?

Sorry, did not mean to say that Borodino was the bloodiest battle of the 19th century. All I meant to say was that Antietam paled in comparison to it (or to Gettysburg, for that matter).

Nonetheless, while Leipzig may have exceeded Borodino in terms of total casualties, it should be noted that Leipzig took place over four days, whereas all the casualties at Borodino were suffered in one day. If I'm not mistaken, Borodino is still the bloodiest one-day battle in history.

Also worth noting is the fact that the French casualty lists at Leipzig included some 35,000 prisoners (those who were stranded when the bridge was blown up prematurely), whereas the casualty lists at Borodino consisted of mostly killed and wounded.

I have to agree. It does seem to me that it depends on definition. Slaughter of defenseless civilian population would seem to me to rank high and execution of defeated survivors. That would make my definition different than one that had a higher death count among combatants.

Originally posted by brunodam

Originally posted by Scaevola

Originally posted by Catalá®How about being a Roman, encircled at Cannae?

I was thinking Cannae too. What a slaughter.

Yes, Cannae. But the problem is what we mean for terrible? Are we talking of number of casualties or of percentage of deaths or intensity of fighting or massacre of survivors or whatelse? Cannae was a slaughter, but the same can be said of Verdun and Stalingrad and Iwo Jima and Attila's Camp Catalaunici and the battle of Manzikerth (between Turks and Bizantine) and the battle of Adrianopolis (between Gots and Romans) and so on......... I believe it is not possible to give a precise answer. For example, in the battle of Otranto the Turks killed all the city's population (even the few women and children who had survived the siege and surrendered) and suffered heavy casualties, but the siege of Leningrad was bigger in number of deaths (and was terrible even because of the many cases of cannibalism).

Borodino is one of the bloodiest one-day battles in history but not bloodier than the first day of the Somme, 1916. If we're avoiding generic names/groupings, then the first day of the Battle of the Somme where the British suffered 60,000 casualties alone, is the bloodiest one-day engagement.

Temujin: I agree that the name "Battle of Kursk" was highly probably an edutainment phrase to begin with, it has since creeped its way into scholarly works.

Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum